A Science of Harmony and Gentle Action
F. David Peat
Introduction
During this conference, held at Temple University,
Philadelphia May 4-6, 1989, we were asked to entertain the
possibility that science should move into a new area,
specifically into the study of consciousness and its relationship
with matter. We were asked to consider a variety of questions:
Does consciousness have an effect at the quantum level?
Does it, for example, act to "collapse the wave function"? We
were asked if the mind possesses extra-sensory powers, if it
can gather information in ways that preclude normal
interactions. We were asked if mind can influence matter by,
for example, catalyzing material and energetic
transformations. Some participants believe that science must
inevitably move into the study of consciousness. Others agree
that theoretical speculations about the ultimate nature of sub-
atomic world make it necessary to take into account the effects
of consciousness.
The writings of the founders of twentieth century physics attest
to a serious interest in deeper questions that took them far
beyond the confines of conventional physics. Wolfgang Pauli
maintained a life long interest in the work of Carl Jung and
introduced Heisenberg and others to Jungian ideas. Planck,
Schrodinger, Eddington, and Jeans were concerned with
questions of consciousness, unity, and the ultimate nature of
reality. Going back to the time of Kepler it is clear that
scientists were fully aware of the sacred nature of their task
and did not regard the contemplation of the universe as a
neutral activity.
"And I do also beseech my Reader.....he would praise and
admire the Wisdome and Greatnesse of the Creator, which I
discover to him by a more narrow explication of the World's
Form, the Disquisition of Causes, and the Detection of the
Errours of Sight." Kepler writes in his "Introduction to Mars".
An exclusively materialistic attitude which denies the
importance of spirt would be entirely foreign to many of the
great historical figures in science. The very motivation to
understand and celebrate the universe, the underlying energy
to question, the aesthetic force of the deepest mathematics
and the most imaginative theories attest to this hidden,
transcendental nature of science. A full understanding of the
universe must surely include the astonishing fact of its
celebration and contemplation by consciousness and of our
own existence.
A call for a new science
A new surge in science is vitally needed today and one that
will go into a variety of outstanding questions about the
interrelationship between mind and matter, the possible role
of information in structuring nature, and the general need for a
deeper understanding of the universe. These questions are
far reaching. Indeed I would suggest that they go far beyond
what I would call the surface phenomena of the mind-matter
relationship and point to a fundamental investigation of the
whole nature of reality and our position within the universe.
But at this point I must confess a prejudice. I am not
particularly interested in what I would call the "surface
phenomena" of consciousness research such as ESP,
telekinesis, precognition and the like. If such effects do exist
and can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific
community they may indeed be of considerable interest in
themselves. But I would contend that they are no more than
the exterior manifestations of something far deeper. Indeed
the meditative traditions of east and west suggest that so-
called paranormal powers are not of deep significance in
themselves but are simply steps on a more important path.
There is, however, the danger that a practitioner will become
caught up in, or attempt to exploit, such "powers". Strict
warnings against mystical dilettantism have always been
issued.
I would therefore like to raise the question of the spirit and
perspective in which this new science is undertaken. It is
vitally important that we should begin in the right way. Is
consciousness, for example, to become an object for science,
and mind placed under the microscope? The science of the
past two hundreds years placed objectivity in the highest
position. The orthodox scientist claims to stand outside the
subject of study and to eliminate any taint of human value from
his or her study. Science, it is believed, should be objective
and value free. There is little room for love and compassion
when it comes to a study of the material world. But there is
always the danger that such an attitude distorts our thought
and perception, particularly when our own consciousness is
taken as an object of study.
Objectivity has the effect of distancing, it implies a division
between the observer and what is observed, a separation in
time and space. It is this division which is of concern in the
present enterprise. The science of the past two hundred years
has brought with it a degree of fragmentation in the way the
world is perceived. Our own century has experienced a
profound loss in our sense of meaning at being in the world.
Objectivity brings with it an infinite loneliness, a loneliness of
separation from the rest of the universe.
Objectivity stresses the significance of the individual and our
control and dominance over nature. By contrast a new surge in
science involving the study of consciousness and matter
should acknowledge the existential fact of our being in the
universe and should accommodate a sense of wholeness,
celebration, joy and wonder at nature, it should act to heal our
division from nature and from our own bodies.
A new science may draw for its insights on other disciplines
such as art, literature, music, religion and native sciences. But
clearly to be given the name of science it must combine a
passion for truth and rigor, it must question unceasingly, its
ultimate goal must be understanding in the widest sense.
Our present fragmented approach to the world cannot
continue, the stakes have become too high. Neither can our
uncritical acceptance of scientific objectivity and the virtue of
unrestricted scientific and technological progress continue.
Societies and technologies are running into problems that
appear to lie beyond their abilities to resolve. If science is to
consider the human dimension then it must do so in the right
spirit. Indeed it is premature at this juncture to talk of new
experiments or novel theoretical explanations without, at the
same time, investigating the metaphysics that underlies the
whole enterprise.
Interaction or Harmony
For this reason I would like to question an assumption that
seems to underlie some of the work I have seen on
consciousness and its interrelationship to matter. A number of
papers and discussions are based on the suggestion that the
interrelationships between mind and matter involve some sort
of influence or interaction. Mind, for example, is said to move
an object or cause a change in matter. A mental act is
supposed to influence the output of a random number
generator. Mind is said to be a transmitter or a receiver of
information at a distance. Mind, it is hypothesized, emits
influences and the will or self causes changes in the world.
Some physicists even believe that consciousness can bring
about the "collapse the wave function". In short,
consciousness and matter, mind and body are conceived of as
separate entities that are connected in some way by a new
and subtle interaction, the one exerting causal influences on
the other.
While it is not inconceivable that an undiscovered interaction
may exist between mind and matter I would suggest that the
deeper understanding of the whole question points in an
entirely different direction. Indeed, the very concepts of
interaction, influence, force, cause, signal and transmission
have been imported wholesale and uncritically from a
paradigm that is based on a more restricted view of the
material world. It is clearly inappropriate to the present study.
The notion of a signal that propagates from one body to
another, or of an interaction influencing an event is predicated
upon the idea of seperability and locality. It assumes that
individual systems are well defined and spatially isolated one
from the other so that a signal can pass between them.
Process and change are the direct result of such causal
interactions. But this view is entirely incompatible with, for
example, the insights of quantum theory that speak of an
undivided wholeness between all parts of an experiment.
Influences and interactions, on the other hand, imply division
in which a force acts between two isolated and well defined
objects. Change and process, according to this latter view, is
essentially mechanical in nature.
By "mechanical" I mean any approach that is based upon the
notion of a reality that can be defined locally and in which
causes operate though the mediation of forces and fields such
that the larger the amplitude of the field the greater is the
effect of this force. Scientists may, of course, chose to
postulate new and exotic forces yet, none the less, they would
generally conform to this mechanistic description. An
exception to this critique is the quantum potential introduced
by David Bohm, (Bohm and Hiley 1987) this does not operate
in a mechanical fashion since its effects do not fall off with
distance or with the intensity of the potential. A system
governed by Bohm's quantum potential is more organic than
mechanical. It is essentially holistic in nature and can only be
analyzed into relatively independent parts under limiting
conditions.
The example of quantum theory, and of Bohm's quantum
potential, suggests that alternative ways exist to discuss
process and change that do not rely upon the ideas of
separation and interaction. Bohm has also argued that a
major area of incompatibility between relativity and quantum
theory arises through the privileged position given to the
concept of a signal in the former theory (Bohm 1971). This is
entirely incompatible with the quantum theory. The idea of a
signal assumes that systems are localizable in space and time
and can be connected by means of some interaction that
propagates between them. But this idea is entirely at odds
with that of the quantum theory which stresses the essential
wholeness of things. The indivisibility of the quantum of action
means that it is impossible to analyze and separate a quantum
system from the apparatus that observes it. Together they form
and irreducible whole.
By contrast causality, of its very nature, implies division. It
suggests a separation in time and space that can only be
bridged by force. The causal paradigm elevates the
importance of the individual in nature, its implications are
control and dominance with the overvaluation of ego and will.
Cause and influence become a one way traffic from the mover
to the moved. They are predicated on a world that is
fragmented and separated and on individuals who are
isolated in their brains and bodies. Such a world view is totally
at odds with the new spirit implied by a study of
consciousness and matter.
The question, therefore, is one of discovering a new language
and new metaphors in which to discuss the universe and our
relationship to it. This is, in fact, not new to science. At the time
of Newton scholars were still dealing in "sympathies" and
"correspondences" and with the idea of balance or harmony
in the whole of nature. The ancient maxim "as above so
below" expresses the essential harmony that extends
throughout the universe so that an individual body becomes a
microcosm in which the greater whole is reflected. A variety of
symbolic systems were devised to express this harmony.
Today such views would generally be dismissed as
unscientific although C.G. Jung has pointed to the remarkable
insights and metaphors between psychology and alchemy.
Both the medieval alchemists and the sages of ancient China
expressed, in symbolic terms, the processes of sublimation,
transformation and refinement of matter that mirrored the
internal transformation of the self. Jung, working in
consultation with Wolfgang Pauli, also developed the idea of
"synchronicity", his "acausal connecting principle" which
attempts to deal with the origin of meaningful patterns in
nature. (Jung 1973)
Jung's ideas were taken seriously not only by Pauli himself but
by a number of the physicist's colleagues. It is unfortunate,
therefore, that the current, popular, view of synchronicity
focuses on bizarre co-incidences while ignoring its deeper
significance. Synchronicity addresses directly the question of
meaning in the universe, the flexible boundary between inner
and outer, and the subjective and objective. It deals in those
numinious patterns that appear simultaneously within the
worlds of matter and mind without the need for positing direct
causal relationships between them. It suggests the existence
of physical and mental correlations that have no direct causal
basis.(Peat 1987)
Such a concept would not have appeared alien to the thinkers
of the middle ages who dealt in sympathies and
correspondences, or indeed to the many other cultures and
civilizations whose daily lives were and are predicated on a
strong belief in the harmony of nature. Synchronicity suggests
that an understanding of harmony be given a place within the
scientific world view.
The sinologist Richard Wilhelm has told the story of a Chinese
rain maker who was asked how he had cause the rain to fall in
a certain village. The rain maker replied that he did not make
rain. Rather, the drought-ridden village had been in a state of
disharmony which had affected the rain maker when he
arrived. The wise man therefore retired to the hut provided for
him and brought himself to order. Since the rain maker was
not separate from the society and environment around him, a
general harmony was restored and the rain fell as it is its
nature so to do. (see Peat 1987)
Recently I witnessed a similar event, a ceremony at a
medicine wheel attended by native representatives from all
over North America. At the start of the ceremony a Mayan
indian was involved in parting the clouds so as to leave a
patch of clear sky above. Sure enough as he rotated his stick
in the air the clouds moved, not all in one direction, but to the
east, west, north and south.
At the time I wondered, how could this individual possibly be
moving the clouds? The idea seemed nonsense. Or did the
connection work in the other direction so that the moving
clouds were rotating the Mayan's stick? But then I seemed to
me that clouds, stick and Mayan were caught up in a greater
dance, one that involved all of us who were present. In this
dance there was no actor and no thing acted upon, rather it
was a harmonious flowing that passed unimpeded through
cloud, wind, rock, mind and body. The ceremony at the
medicine wheel had not been created by my native hosts
alone but was a dance in which we had all been enjoined.
Can these ways of thinking about pattern, connection, process
and change be incorporated into a scientific paradigm that
would be more appropriate for a discussion of consciousness
and matter? I believe that this is not only possible but
desirable.
Non-local connections
At this point I would like to refer to the significance of Bell's
Theorem. (Bell 1987) John Bell's remarkable result indicates
that non-local correlations exist within quantum systems that
cannot be explained on a mechanistic, causal basis. The Bell
experiment, that has been carried out by Alain Aspect in Paris
as well as by other groups, involves a pair of photons, or
electrons whose combined state is correlated and which are
then allowed to separate to a macroscopic distance. Careful
experiments show that a remarkable degree of correlation is
maintained between the two particles even when no
interaction, signal or force passes between them.
Of course there is nothing unusual in objects remaining
correlated even when they are far apart. Two synchronized
clocks will continue to read the same time when they are at
opposite ends of the continent. But the Bell correlations are
not of this nature, they exceed anything that can be explained
on the basis of a "local reality" or a "classical theory" of
physics involving mechanical fields, interactions or signals.
Suppose, for example, that photons and electrons possessed
individual properties and could be well defined each in their
own regions. They would each carry "cards of identity" as it
where. Changes of state would then be produced by
interactions, forces, signals or other causes. But Bell's result
clearly demonstrates that such "local systems" could never
display the degree of correlation that is exhibited
experimentally and appears to be unique to the sub-atomic
world.
Bell's result shows that quantum systems are correlated in
ways that lie outside any appeal to mechanical connection or
to a locally defined reality. They have therefore been called
non-local correlations which implies that entirely new
categories are required for thinking about space and time in
the quantum context. This is not to say that some new
mechanical interaction operates outside the confines of space
and time, but rather that the ideas of connection and
correlation must be thought about in new ways. In this context
Jung's notion of an acausal connection does not seem entirely
inappropriate. Or to put it another way, an acausal connection
may manifest itself in the form of non-local correlations that
appear to lie outside the normal confines of space and time.
Bell's theorem has been used by a number of writers to
explain supposed mental effects and interactions by
proposing that such mental interactions are in some way "non-
local" and can make instantaneous or faster-than-light
connections. But this is to misinterpret the meaning of Bell's
result which denies that any force or interaction whatsoever
passes between the two particles. (Again an exception may
be made in the case of Bohm's unusual and holistic quantum
potential).
While Bell's theorem specifically deals with quantum events
occurring at the sub-atomic level it does provide a powerful
metaphor since the idea of non-locality goes beyond Bell's
particular result and suggests that patterns and processes
within nature can be looked at in new ways. Thinking in terms
of non-local correlations and acausal connections implies a
more connected and holistic way of viewing the universe and
one in which explanations based on the ideas of influence and
interaction become less inevitable. Indeed it is my belief that
non-locality, with its inherent connectedness, may be a more
natural way of thinking about the universe.
This idea may well harmonize with the native American view
of things. Indians talk to trees, some of them talk to rocks. In
the forest they experience "skanagoah" or the "great
presence", an electrifying awareness of unity and balance. To
suggest that some energy, influence or signal passes
between tree and Indian would be to miss the essence of the
experience. It is best expressed therefore as a sort of active,
dynamical harmony. P. Colorado, a modern academic suggest
that no direct passage of energy of force is involved. Her great
grandfather expressed this harmony with animals and plants in
the following way:
"We have to understand the nature. That is why we have to
talk to them. We don't pray to them, we talk to them because
they breath the same air we do. We are put here with them.
We are also a part of the plant life. We are always growing, we
have to have strong roots." (Colorado 1988)
When there is no inherent separation between a person and a
tree there is no need to propose a connection between them.
New Ways of Thinking
New ways of thinking along similar lines are coming from
many areas. Medicine, for example, has in the past been firmly
based on causative models in which a disease is caused by
an invading organism and cured by the action of d drug.
Today, however, increasing understanding of the immune
system has led some doctors to become interested in the
question of the meaning of a person's life and its role in the
movement towards health. In such a view causative chains
play a secondary role within a larger system that extends from
the body-mind to the family and society at large as an organic
whole.
Some linguists are also rejecting what they feel to be a
mechanical view of their subject, including the "transport
theory of language" in which words are used to transport a
"cargo" of meaning between individuals. Rather than language
being seen in terms of an interaction or signal between an
active speaker and a passive listener the emphasis is placed
upon how meaning unfolds out of the whole activity of
discourse and upon the creativity involved in the building of
"mental spaces" by both parties. (Ford and Peat 1988)
Meaning in this sense does not lie exclusively in individual
words but is non-local, belonging to the whole language, the
conversation, its context, the memories and attitudes of the
speakers and indeed to the whole society.
There are also indications of new metaphors from the physical
sciences. The mathematician Roger Penrose, for example,
has been exploring the structure of what could be called non-
local spaces. The building blocks of these spaces, called
twistors, are non-local in nature. Points and local regions are
then built up as secondary objects generated by congruences
of the more basic non-local twistors. In Penrose's approach
space-time and the elementary particles are to be generated
together out of a common non-local starting point. Only in the
limit can localized bodies and the interactions between them
recovered. (Penrose and Rindler 1986)
Non-linear systems, with their regions of stability and
instability, limit cycles and chaos, bifurcation points and fractal
behavior, are providing a rich new source of metaphors for
what could be termed a non-mechanical view of nature. Non-
linear systems are not generally separable yet, under certain
conditions they can throw out quasi independent entities--like
vortices in a river--that are nonetheless dependent upon an
underlying dynamics. What appear at one level to be
independent objects interacting together will, on deeper
examination, turn out to be a manifestation of the one
underlying non-linear dynamics. Non-linear systems can be so
extraordinarily sensitive to the slightest influence so that a
vanishingly small change in one part of the system can
produce an overwhelming change in another. Such systems
must be treated as a whole and do not always lend
themselves to fragmentation and discussion in terms of
interactions.
Gentle Action
The new approach I am proposing is based upon a belief in
the harmony of nature that extends from the subtle to the
manifest, from the material to the mental. It is to be discussed
in terms of correlations that are non-local and connections that
are acausal--although the more conventional explanations in
terms of interactions and influences would also play a role.
Harmony has been advocated as a fundamental activity in
nature by everyone from Lao-tsu to native people all over the
world. The Native American, for example, believes in a basic
harmony amongst stones, plants, animals and that they are
placed on earth to aid in maintaining this harmony.
Such a belief carries with it an awesome responsibility. It
demands an extraordinary quality of mind and a perception
that is based on love and respect for all things. The essence
of such a life does not lie in the desire for constant action, in
instigating change to correct some perceived mistake, in the
search for solutions to problems but upon a gentle and
constant movement towards harmony. (Peat 1988) Such a
movement may be as much internal as external. It could be
compared to the delicate tuning of an automobile which
results in the release of great power, or in the very fine
adjustment of a television set which allows the signal to pass
through the circuit unimpeded.
A further metaphor is of a highly complex system in which its
individual phases are subject to fine adjustments. By making a
series of small adjustments globally across the system it
becomes possible to lock these phases together so that the
whole system becomes involved co-operatively in some new
activity. Such a system may be quite resistant to any local,
forceful intervention, however tiny changes that are made in a
co-operative or non-local way can result in entirely new
behavior. Take, for example, the edge of a pond in which a
series of ripples are constantly forming and dying away. If the
phases of these very small disturbances could be coordinated
exactly all around the edge of the pond then they would
interfere constructively and propagate towards the center of
the pond where they would create a large splash. By
operating in a sensitive yet gentle way it becomes possible to
facilitate a system to produce large effects. The emphasis,
however, would be on the understanding and maintenance of
balance.
Similar effects may also operate within the human body and
brain. For example, vanishingly small but non-locally co-
ordinated effects operating within a neural network could
produce interesting effects. One could envision that memories
are stored, non-locally, in this way. That ripples of activity
interfere constructively, spreading inward to some center of
activity within the brain, spread out again and are then
focussed into some new region.
The hypothesis advanced here is that such gentle, non-local
processes are operating very generally within nature. Certain
individuals may be able to bring themselves into harmony with
such natural flows and participate in them. But clearly the
emphasis would not be on intention or acts of will but upon
openness, freedom from emotional and conceptual blocks
and a sense of deep respect for the natural world.
The word "love" comes to mind. It has, I understand, been
used by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho in the context of biology. I would
suggest that a love of nature is exactly what is demanded in
this new field of research. Love is a dissolution of boundaries,
an acceptance, a harmonious merging and, at the same time,
a deep sense of energy. Love does not seek to control or
dominate but respects the integrety of the other. Love cannot
be tapped on demand, it comes of its own accord and floods
the organism with a feeling of wellbeing and sensitivity.
Conclusion
A new spirit is required for a new science; one that does not
seek to dominate or control, that does not impose its views on
nature but is tempered by respect, the desire for harmony, and
compassion for all things. Such an activity must retain the
scientific passion for truth and understanding while, at the
same time seeking to celebrate nature and restore the
harmony of the planet, society and each individual.
A science that proposes to investigate harmony and maintain
balance must clearly be sensitive to its own methods, values
and ethics--particularly when the scientist becomes his oe her
own object of study. Discovering the basis and methodology
of this new science will prove extraordinarily difficult and
requires a profound shift in thinking. Current science is based
upon the notion of reproducibility and statistical analysis, and
upon analysis in terms of cause and effect. Little value is given
to an individual event--the Big Bang excepted. How then is
science to deal with the personal experience and the value of
a numinious event? How will it be possible to combine rigor
and subjectivity? These are profoundly difficult issues.
On the other hand art, poetry and literature are concerned with
truth and the balance between objectivity and subjectivity.
Aesthetics and internal value may play a vital role, yet great art
still possesses rigor and honesty. Both art and literature are
concerned with the possibility of a multiplicity of
interpretations yet who could have been more rigorous in his
investigation of subjective reality and the nature of memory
and time than Marcel Proust? Will it therefore be possible to
draw upon the discipline and values of the arts when moving
into a study of the human position in the universe?
In conclusion, therefore, a new science is proposed in which
harmony and balance play a leading role and in which ethics
and compassion are placed side by side with truth and
understanding. A variety of approaches have been suggested
in this article such as realizing the limitation of the notions of
interaction, signal and local reality in favour of "acausal
connections" and non-local correlations. A balance between
objectivity and subjectivity has been proposed and it has also
been suggested that the ethics, compassion and methodology
of the investigator are of vitally important. Human values can
no longer be eliminated from an investigation of
consciousness and our own role in nature.
References
J.S. Bell (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
D. Bohm (1971), Quantum Theory as an Indication of a New
Order in Physics, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico
Fermi" ed B. d'Espagnat. Academic Press, New York.
D. Bohm and B. Hiley (1987), The Ontological Significance of
the Quantum Potential Model, Phys Reports. 144, 321.
P. Colorado (1988). Bridging Native and Western Science.
Convergence XXI (2/3), 49.
Alan Ford and F. David Peat (1988) The Role of Language in
Science. Foundations of Physics. 18(12), 1233.
C. G. Jung (1973), Synchronicity, trans R.F.C. Hull. Bollingen
Series (Princteon University Press).
F. D. Peat (1987). Synchronicity: The Bridge between Matter
and Mind. Bantam Books, New York
F.D.Peat (1988). Peat on Chaos and a Creative Suspension of
Action. Creativity Research Journal 1, 131.
R. Penrose and W. Rindler (1986). Spinors and Space-Time,
Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. See also L.P.
Hughston and R.S. Ward. Advances in Twistor Theory.
Pitman, London, 1979. A more popular account of twistor
theory is given in chapters 7-10 of F.D.Peat. Superstrings and
the Search for a Theory of Everything. Contemporary Books,
Chicago, New York, 1988.